The big idea
The DfT's laws on what can be ridden where are greatly limiting our options for new types of vehicles to be used on the highway. This has a particularly unfair impact on those with mobility restrictions who wish to use an environmentally friendly vehicle, such as the Stand-n-ride http://www.a2bscooters.com/bstelsc.html and the famous Segways http://www.segway.com/individual/models/index.php why force us to have a car to go more than a few miles just because we do not have the strength to use a "normal" bicycle?
Please allow us to use the fantastic range of new, safe, electric vehicles in our villages and towns instead of cars.
Why does this matter?
These rules are totally unnecessary, and are limiting innovation as well as commerce in this area.
This will improve both reduce Carbon levels, and also increase mobility, and access to work for many people who do not want or cannt afford to use a car, but do not have the public transport links that cities have.
This would particularly benefit those with fluctuating disabilities who cannot stick to the time of the single bus trip a day or week.
Agree with the sentiment. I have written to various MPs and MEPs about the same issue.
At present, electrically assisted pedal cycles are detailed under European Union directive 2002/24/EC and European product safety standard EN 15194 in relation to the UK’s Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycle Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1168) and subsequent legislation.
Copy of my email as sent follows:
I am writing to you in relation to an area of legislation that I hope
you and others in The European Parliament may consider amending the
European E-Bike and Pedelec/Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles
Regulations. I am aware that there is UK legislation related to these
issues and have also written to my MP, Kate Hoey, about this.
At present, this legislation means that, in Europe including the UK,
E-Bike and Pedelec/Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles Regulations
regulations apply to certain bicycles, tandem bicycles or tricycles
fitted with pedals by means of which they are capable of being
propelled. For the regulations to apply, the motor assistance must be
provided by an electric motor and not by an internal combustion engine.
The electric motor must not be able to propel the machine when it is
travelling at more than 15mph. Furthermore, the vehicle must also meet
the following requirements:
Maximum kerbside weight (including batteries but without rider) shall
not exceed
- Bicycle: 40 kg – Tandem Bicycle: 60 kg – Tricycle: 60 kg
Maximum continuous rated power output of the motor shall not exceed
- Bicycle: 200W – Tandem Bicycle: 250W – Tricycle: 250W
[this information was kindly provided by the Department for Transport]
Now, I understand the purpose of this legislation is to support road
safety, which is laudable and legitimate. There is clearly an attempt
within this legislation to minimise the risk to road uses and
pedestrians by limiting the momentum and thus the potential for damage
by a rider and vehicle. I am sure you appreciate the practicalities of
this.
My conflict with the legislation is the slightly inaccurate application
of the science and the elements that do not contribute to safety.
Momentum is a product of velocity and mass.
The legislation correctly limits the mass of the vehicle, as this is a
factor in momentum and therefore of risk.
The legislation correctly limits velocity – by restricting motor
assistance to the vehicle at below 25kph/15mph
But why…
…does the legislation restrict the power of the motor, which is
surely irrelevant if the appropriate limits to velocity are in place?
…does the legislation insist on “pedal assist”, as this contributes
nothing obvious to safety (and actually enables the vehicle to travel
faster than 15mph, making it more not less dangerous)?
So, neither pedal assist nor the power of the motor are direct
contributors to vehicle safety.
Why bother? Why is this relevant? There are number of innovative urban
transport solutions (I point to the Trikke Pon-E and award winning
YikeBike) that are illegal as a result of the legislation. Both could
contribute to decongesting the city and improving CO2 emissions without
endangering rider or the the public. But we aren’t allowed to use them
legally, for no apparently logical reason.
Please would you raise this with the relevant people in Brussels and
Strasbourg?